eBook - ePub
The Justification of God
An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23
Piper, John
This is a test
Partager le livre
- 246 pages
- English
- ePUB (adapté aux mobiles)
- Disponible sur iOS et Android
eBook - ePub
The Justification of God
An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23
Piper, John
DĂ©tails du livre
Aperçu du livre
Table des matiĂšres
Citations
Ă propos de ce livre
John Piper presents a careful, reasoned study of the doctrine of election. He dissects Paul's argument to highlight the picture of God and his righteousness painted in Romans 9. Undergirded by his belief that the sovereignty of God is too precious a part of our faith to dismiss or approach weak-kneed, Piper explores the Greek text and Paul's argument with singular deftness.
Foire aux questions
Comment puis-je résilier mon abonnement ?
Il vous suffit de vous rendre dans la section compte dans paramĂštres et de cliquer sur « RĂ©silier lâabonnement ». Câest aussi simple que cela ! Une fois que vous aurez rĂ©siliĂ© votre abonnement, il restera actif pour le reste de la pĂ©riode pour laquelle vous avez payĂ©. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Puis-je / comment puis-je télécharger des livres ?
Pour le moment, tous nos livres en format ePub adaptĂ©s aux mobiles peuvent ĂȘtre tĂ©lĂ©chargĂ©s via lâapplication. La plupart de nos PDF sont Ă©galement disponibles en tĂ©lĂ©chargement et les autres seront tĂ©lĂ©chargeables trĂšs prochainement. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Quelle est la différence entre les formules tarifaires ?
Les deux abonnements vous donnent un accĂšs complet Ă la bibliothĂšque et Ă toutes les fonctionnalitĂ©s de Perlego. Les seules diffĂ©rences sont les tarifs ainsi que la pĂ©riode dâabonnement : avec lâabonnement annuel, vous Ă©conomiserez environ 30 % par rapport Ă 12 mois dâabonnement mensuel.
Quâest-ce que Perlego ?
Nous sommes un service dâabonnement Ă des ouvrages universitaires en ligne, oĂč vous pouvez accĂ©der Ă toute une bibliothĂšque pour un prix infĂ©rieur Ă celui dâun seul livre par mois. Avec plus dâun million de livres sur plus de 1 000 sujets, nous avons ce quâil vous faut ! DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Prenez-vous en charge la synthÚse vocale ?
Recherchez le symbole Ăcouter sur votre prochain livre pour voir si vous pouvez lâĂ©couter. Lâoutil Ăcouter lit le texte Ă haute voix pour vous, en surlignant le passage qui est en cours de lecture. Vous pouvez le mettre sur pause, lâaccĂ©lĂ©rer ou le ralentir. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Est-ce que The Justification of God est un PDF/ePUB en ligne ?
Oui, vous pouvez accĂ©der Ă The Justification of God par Piper, John en format PDF et/ou ePUB ainsi quâĂ dâautres livres populaires dans Theologie & Religion et Biblische Studien. Nous disposons de plus dâun million dâouvrages Ă dĂ©couvrir dans notre catalogue.
Informations
2
My Kinsmen Are Accursed!
Romans 9:1â5
1. The place of Romans 9:1â5 in the argument
If the main aim of this book is to understand the defense of Godâs righteousness in Rom 9:14â23, why devote a whole chapter to Rom 9:1â5? The reason is that Paulâs argument in the chapter is so tightly woven that understanding one stage depends on understanding the others. The justification of God in 9:14â23 can be properly understood only in light of the assertions of 9:6bâ13 which have seemed to call Godâs righteousness into question. Then again 9:6bâ13 is Paulâs effort to show that the word of God has not fallen (9:6a), and this effort can be understood only when we see why and in what sense the word of God has been called into question. This is what Rom 9:1â5 tells us and that is why we must include a chapter on this unit.
ExcursusâThe place of Romans 9â11 in the epistle
Of course, the whole epistle is woven together so that each part is illuminated somewhat by the others. But every study has its limits. Therefore I will content myself with a brief excursus concerning the recent discussion of the relationship between Rom 1â8 and Rom 9â11, and simply align myself with the view that seems to me to accord best with Paulâs intention.[1] C.H. Dodd is often cited, but less often followed, as a representative of those who stress the independence of Rom 9â11 from Rom 1â8 (Romans, 161). For example, A.M. Hunter, in explicit dependence on Dodd, writes, âPaul may have written this section earlier as a separate discussion of a vexed question. It forms a continuous whole and may be read without reference to the rest of the letterâ (Introducing the New Testament, 96).
W.G. Kuemmel has demonstrated the inadequacy of the efforts to account for the presence of Rom 9â11 in the letter on the basis of the personal situation of Paul (e.g. preparing for his defense in Jerusalem[2]) or the concrete problems of the church in Rome (e.g. the presumptuousness of the Jewish Christians[3]). âWhy these chapters are found in Romans can only be answered when the theological meaning of the chapters both in connection with the rest of Romans and Pauline theology is explainedâ (Kuemmel, âProbleme von Roemer 9â11,â 26). Thus the purpose of Rom 9â11 must be explained in relation to the purpose of the whole letter. Kuemmel is right, I think, that no suggested purpose for the letter is more probable than the one implied in 1:10ff and 15:20ff: âPaul writes to this community because in spite of the existence of a Christian community there he feels obligated to preach the gospel there too (1:15), and because he desires the material help of the Romans for his mission plans in Spain and the spiritual help of the Romans for his perseverance in Jerusalem (15:24)â (Kuemmel, 27). Paul aims to lay before this church the Christian gospel which he preaches so that they can see âthe grace given to me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of Godâ (15:15f). Since the gospel that he proclaims in Rom 1â8 is the power of God unto salvation âto the Jews firstâ (1:16) and since the Christ is âdescended from David according to the fleshâ (1:3) and âthere is great value in circumcisionâ (3:2) and âthe faithlessness of the Jews does not nullify the faithfulness of Godâ (3:3) and a saving promise was made âto Abraham and his descendantsâ (4:13), the question of Israelâs destiny becomes acute. It grows necessarily out of the exposition of Rom 1â8.
Leenhardt argues that between Rom 1â8 and 9â11 âthere is a very close connection; furthermore a real logical necessity compels the apostle to deal with the subject which he now broaches [in Rom 9â11].â[4] A little differently than Leenhardt, but following Goppelt,[5] I see the necessity for Rom 9â11 in this: the hope of the Christian, with which Rom 1â8 came to a climax, is wholly dependent on Godâs faithfulness to his word, his call (8:28,30). But, as Gutbrod asks, âCan the new community trust Godâs Word when it seems to have failed the Jews?â (TDNT, III, 386). The unbelief of Israel, the chosen people, and their consequent separation from Christ (Rom 9:3) seem to call Godâs word into question and thus to jeopardize not only the privileged place of Israel, but also the Christian hope as well.[6] Therefore, in Paulâs view, the theme of Rom 9â11 is not optional; it is essential for the securing of Rom 1â8. This view of Rom 9â11 assumes that Rom 9:6a (Godâs word has not fallen) is the main point which Rom 9â11 was written to prove, in view of Israelâs unbelief and rejection.[7] What is at stake ultimately in these chapters is not the fate of Israel; that is penultimate. Ultimately Godâs own trustworthiness is at stake.[8] And if Godâs word of promise cannot be trusted to stand forever, then all our faith is in vain. Therefore our goal in analyzing Rom 9:1â5 is to see precisely how Paul conceives of the tension between Godâs word and the fate of Israel. What is it precisely that makes Godâs word appear to have fallen, but, in fact, does not impugn Godâs faithfulness at all?
2. Exegesis of Romans 9:1â5
The following division of verse parts aims to highlight the textâs structure and to facilitate precision of reference in the exegesis.
1 a I speak the truth in Christ.
b I do not lie,
c my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit
2 that I have great grief and unceasing pain in my heart.
3 a For I myself could wish to be anathema, separated from Christ
b on behalf of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh,
4 a who are Israelites;
b whose are the sonship (áŒĄ Ï
áŒ±ÎżÎžÎ”Ï᜷α)
and the glory (áŒĄ ÎŽáœčΟα)
and the covenants (αጱ ÎŽÎčαΞáżÎșαÎč)[9]
and the giving of the law (áŒĄ ÎœÎżÎŒÎżÎžÎ”Ï᜷α)
and the service of worship (áŒĄ λαÏÏΔ᜷α)
and the promises (αጱ áŒÏÎ±ÎłÎłÎ”Î»áœ·Î±Îč);
5 a whose are the fathers
b and from whom is the Messiah according to the flesh,
c who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.
In Rom 9:1â3 Paul avers his pain over the plight of his people. In 9:4,5 he describes the privileges of âhis kinsmen according to the flesh.â The glorious privileges of 9:4,5 stand in vivid contrast to the sorrow of 9:3 and account for its intensity.[10] It is precisely this contrast between the privileges of Paulâs kinsmen in 9:4,5 and their plight in 9:3 which seems to imply that Godâs word has fallen. What are these privileges (2.1) and this plight (2.2)?
2.1 The privileges of Paulâs kinsmen, Romans 9:4, 5
The structure of Rom 9:4,5 is tantalizing. It allures us to see intentional patterns, but in places eludes our desire for complete symmetry. The first characteristic of Paulâs kinsmen is that âthey are Israelitesâ (9:4a). This designation is probably intended to resonate with a richness that sums up all the other privileges in 9:4,5. Not only does it stand at the head of the list of privileges, but also grammatically the rest are subordinate to it. Its significance for Paul is unfolded through three relative clauses (ᜧΜ . . . ᜧΜ . . . áŒÎŸ ᜧΜ) whose antecedent in each case is ጞÏÏαηλáżÏαÎč.[11] Within the first relative clause (9:4b) six feminine nouns, each connected simply with Îșα᜷, describe the privileges belonging to the âIsraelites.â The formal pattern of these six nouns is visibly (and was audibly) obvious:
áŒĄ | Ï áŒ±ÎżÎžÎ”Ï᜷α Îșα᜶ áŒĄ | ÎŽáœčΟα Îșα᜶ αጱ | ÎŽÎčαΞáżÎșαÎč |
Îșα᜶ áŒĄ | ÎœÎżÎŒÎżÎžÎ”Ï᜷α Îșα᜶ áŒĄ | λαÏÏΔ᜷α Îșα᜶ αጱ | áŒÏÎ±ÎłÎłÎ”Î»áœ·Î±Îč |
The list falls into two groups of three with endings corresponding between the first and fourth, second and fifth, third and sixth.[12] This observation alone may be enough to account for the hapax legomenon ÎœÎżÎŒÎżÎžÎ”Ï᜷α (instead of Paulâs usual ÎœáœčÎŒÎżÏ which would have matched Ï
áŒ·ÎżÏ but not Ï
áŒ±ÎżÎžÎ”Ï᜷α) and for the unusual use of the plural αጱ ÎŽÎčαΞáżÎșαÎč to produce the assonance with αጱ áŒÏÎ±ÎłÎłÎ”Î»áœ·Î±Îč.
Two other implications of this structure emerge for interpretation. First, the willingness to choose some words on the basis of rhyme or assonance implies that the meaning may lie more in the total, unified impact of the sixfold group than in the separate, distinct meanings of each member. We will have to test this implication as we analyze the individual members below. Second, since such a symmetrical structure tends to resist alteration and facilitate memory, it suggests that the unit is perhaps traditional rather than created ad hoc for this occasion. The occurrence of the unusual ÎœÎżÎŒÎżÎžÎ”Ï᜷α and the plural ÎŽÎčαΞáżÎșαÎč could also suggest that Paul is here using a traditional Jewish list of privileges. Otto Michel and Lucien Cerfaux have argued for this view.[13]
But since Paul was one of the most creative and seminal theologians of the early church, we should consider seriously whether Rom 9:4 reflects his own selectivity, artistry and theology. This would not have to mean that Paul composed this list of privileges just for this letter. The letter clearly reflects Paulâs give-and-take with Jewish and Greek listeners during his missionary efforts.[14] It would be likely then that if Rom 9:4 is Paulâs own composition, it originated as early as his reflection on the problem of Israelâs rejection (Rom 11:14,15). If this were the case, the intervening years of repeatedly handing on this teaching to various groups would justify calling Rom 9:4 both genuinely Pauline as well as âtraditional.â
In fact the arguments that Paul used a Hellenistic-Jewish tradition here are not persuasive. We have already shown that the poetic structure could have easily originated in Paulâs preaching and that therefore the appearance of words not common in Paul need not contradict his authorship since the demands of assonance in the parallel structure can adequately account for the unusual words. Moreover it remains to be proved that the other words, e.g. Ï
áŒ±ÎżÎžÎ”Ï᜷α, are used here in a different sense from Paulâs usual usage (Michel). On the contrary, especially Ï
áŒ±ÎżÎžÎ”Ï᜷α points to a Pauline origin since the word is used only by him in the New Testament (Rom 8:15,23; 9:4; Gal 4:5; Eph 1:5), does not occur in the LXX, and has virtually no history with a religious meaning prior to Paul.[15] But most important of all is the observation of Ulrich Luz, which has been borne out in my own study, that there simply are no parallels in the Jewish literature of a list of the prerogatives of Israel in anything approximating this form or selection.[16] Therefore, it is more probable that Rom 9:4 reflects Paulâs own art and theology. This will have a significant bearing on the exegesis.
The second relative clause attached to âIsraelitesâ is âwhose are the fathersâ (ᜧΜ ÎżáŒ± ÏαÏáœłÏΔÏ, 9:5a). Structurally the main question here is why ÏαÏáœłÏÎ”Ï is introduced with its own relative pronoun (ᜧΜ) rather than simply being added to the list of prerogatives in 9:4b. The answer is probably that as a seventh member of the list it would have destroyed the symmetry of three rhyming pairs, especially since ÏαÏáœłÏÎ”Ï is masculine while the other members of the list are all feminine. Moreover, it refers to persons while the other members are all concepts. However, it is not as easy to say something positive about why ÏαÏáœłÏÎ”Ï receives its own separate clause. There may be no other significance than what was just said, together with Paulâs desire not to put the patriarchs and the Messiah together in one clause (9:5ab) and thus imply that they are privileges on the same level. But two possible implications of the structure may be suggested. Michel (Roemer, 227 note 2) points out how the trio, Israelites (9:4a) and fathers (9:5a) and Messiah (9:5b), may reveal an intention to move from the many through the few to the one. Another possibility is that after listing the benefits of being Israelites in 9:4b, Paul closes with a kind of structure that brackets Israelâs history: the patriarchs inaugurate Israel and the Messiah brings its history to a climax (see below pp 42â43). Or it may simply be that, in view of the theological significance Paul ascribes to the fathers (11:16,28), he felt the need to include them among Israelâs benefits, and here in 9:5a is where they fit best.
One final observation of form is that the third relative clause (9:5b) differs from the first two (áŒÎŸ ᜧΜ instead of ᜧΜ). The reason for this is so closely related to the meaning of the verse that we will postpone our discussion until the exegesis below (see pp 26â28).
2.11 âWho are Israelitesâ
It is of utmost importance to notice that the antecedent of ÎżáŒ”ÏÎčÎœÎ”Ï is Paulâs kinsmen according to the flesh who are anathema, separated from Christ (9:3); and that this group of unbelievers is even now called Israelites (present tense: 9:4a). The tense of the verb[17] in 9:4a as well as the relationship[18] between 9:1â5 and 9:6a resists every effort (e.g. of Johannes Munck and Lucien Cerfaux) to relegate the prerogatives of Israel to the past.[19] Furthermore, Paulâs bold assertion that the glorious privileges of Israel belong to unbelieving Israel (the antecedent of ÎżáŒ”ÏÎčΜΔÏ, 9:4a) resists the effort of Erich Dinkier (âPraedestination,â 88) to argue from 9:6b (âNot all those from Israel are Israelâ) that âthe promises refer not to the empirical-historical Israel, but to the eschatological Israelâ (by which he means the Church, without regard to ethnic origins). Whether the second âIsraelâ in 9:6b is the Church or the believing portion of empirical-historical Israel, the point there is this: the privileges given to Israel can never be construed to guarantee the salvation of any individual Jew or synagogue of Jews, and therefore the unbelief of Paulâs kinsmen cannot immediately be construed to mean that Godâs word of promise has fallen. But in no way does 9:6b exclude the possibility that Godâs intention may someday be to save âall Israelâ (11:26). And therefore 9:6b does not give us a warrant to construe the privileges of 9:4,5 (against the wording of the text) as the privileges of eschatological Israel (= the Church) to the exclusion of empirical-historical Israel. Why should Dinkier prefer to see a contradiction between Rom 9:1â13 and 11:1â32 than to allow Godâs intention for Israelâs future in 11:1â32 to help him see that Rom 9:6b should not be construed to rule out a future for ethnic Israel?
ExcursusâThe theological unity of Romans 9 and 11
W.G. Kuemmel (âProbleme von Roemer 9â11,â 30f) thinks that âthe central problem in the interpretation of Rom 9â11â is whether Paul âdestroys or employs conceptions of redemptive history.â He cites Dinkler (âPraedestination,â 97), Luz (Geschichtsverstaendnis, 295, 299) and Guettgemanns (âHeilsgeschichte,â 40, 47, 54, 58) as representatives of the exegetes who tend to emphasize the existential dimension of Paulâs meaning here to the exclusion of the historical. Over against this group Kuemmel finds an âexcellent assumption for the interpretation of Rom 9â11â in the emphasis of Kaesemann (âRechtfertigung und Heilsgeschichte,â 134), Mueller (Gottes Gerechtigkeit, 105) and Stuhlmacher (âZur Interpretation von Roemer 11, 25â32,â 560) on the indispensably hist...